FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY: Findings, Policy Lessons, and Next Steps

RESEARCH METHODS

From September 2010 to January 2012, the study enrolled 2,282 families living in 12 communities. Researchers

randomly assigned treatment groups to families that recently spent at least 7 days in emergency shelters. The study

tracked these families over the span of 3 years, with two surveys measuring the impacts at 20 months and 37 months

after assignment. Reports published in July 2015 and October 2016 summarized the findings of these surveys for

outcomes in four areas of interest:

▪ Housing stability: nights spent homeless, doubled-up, or in emergency shelter

▪ Family preservation: whereabouts of family members or changes to household composition

▪ Adult/child well-being: physical/mental health and incidence of trauma, substance abuse, and domestic violence

▪ Self-sufficiency: employment status, household income, education/training, and food security

ABOUT THE HOMELESSNESS POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

The Homelessness Policy Research Institute (HPRI) convenes researchers and policymakers to help design and coordinate

timely, relevant, and actionable research to end homelessness in Los Angeles County. HPRI is a partnership between the

USC Price Center for Social Innovation and the United Way of the Greater Los Angeles’ Home for Good Initiative.

socialinnovation.usc.edu/hpri

@HPRI_LA

www.facebook.com/PriceSocialInnovation/

The Department of Housing and Urban Development launched the Family Options Study in 2008 to determine the

effectiveness of policy interventions that assist families experiencing homelessness. This brief highlights the findings,

applies policy lessons to LA County’s Homeless Initiative (HI), and recommends further areas of research. The three

year, multi-state study evaluated the impact of giving families in emergency shelters priority access to one of the

following interventions:

▪ Subsidy only (SUB): permanent housing subsidy without additional services (e.g. Housing Choice Voucher)

▪ Community-Based Rapid Re-housing (CBRR): temporary housing subsidy for private housing with limited

additional services

▪ Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH): temporary stay in transitional housing facility with emphasis on

additional services

▪ Usual Care (UC): services or assistance that homeless families usually receive (such as shelters, temporary housing,

and job training) without priority access to any of the above programs

POLICY IMPLICATIONS FOR THE LOS ANGELES REGION

▪ The benefits exhibited by long-term subsidies support advancing HI strategies that facilitate or expand housing

voucher programs. For example, no current HI strategy grants priority access to families in emergency shelters for

long-term subsidy programs.1 Further research should be done to determine how best to expand access to this

intervention and the costs associated.

▪ Current recommendations for FY 2019-2020 increase the budget for HI strategy B4, which financially incentivizes

landlords to secure housing for voucher recipients.2 Results from this study support the use of strategies like B4

that increase access and effectiveness of long-term rental subsidies.

▪ Priority access to rapid re-housing produced roughly the same outcomes as usual care, but it costs 9% less. This

supports current HI efforts to expand rapid re-housing programs (e.g. HI strategy B3) since these programs save

resources in comparison to status quo care.

▪ Policies should avoid granting priority access to transitional housing programs since this intervention showed little to

no measureable advantage to usual care or other interventions.

▪ Evidence here supports the theory that the high cost of housing primarily causes homelessness. This highlights the

importance of County efforts to directly address housing costs by building more affordable housing and expanding

access to current units for families experiencing homelessness.

▪ Several family outcomes of interest saw no improvement over 3 years despite priority access and intervention

policies. As such, further research should address housing stability outcomes, food security concerns, and

employment and training opportunities.

SNAPSHOT FINDINGS

▪ Families with priority access to long-term subsidies saw improved

outcomes in housing stability in comparison to families receiving

usual care (Figure 1). Long-term subsidies increased the number of

families living in their own place by 15 percentage points, reduced

the number of places families reported living, and reduced the

proportion of families with a recent shelter stay by nearly three

fourths (Figure 1). Surveys also indicated that long-term subsidies

reduced: proportion of families separated from a child, stress of the

head of household, and reported incidence of domestic violence,

substance abuse, and food insecurity.

▪ Families with priority access to rapid re-housing saw no significant

differences in outcomes for housing stability, family preservation,

or adult well-being. However, surveys indicated that CBRR reduced

school/childcare absences and reported child behavior issues.

▪ Families with priority access to transitional housing reported fewer

emergency shelter stays (9%) in comparison to families receiving

usual care (15%). No additional differences in outcomes were found between the PBTH group and the UC

group. Even though additional services and costs associated with PBTH are directed at adult/child well-

being and family self-sufficiency, the PBTH groups did not display improved outcomes in these areas.

▪ At $4,819 per month, the cost of providing shelter and housing services to families in emergency shelters

exceeds that of the three interventions combined (Figure 2). Both emergency shelters and transitional

housing incur higher costs due to

additional services. Long-term subsidies

and rapid re-housing were the least

expensive intervention at $1,172 and

$880 respectively.

1 County of Los Angeles Homeless Initiative (November 2018). Quarterly Report #11. Accessed on January 24, 2019 from: http://homeless.lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/11.15.18-BM-on-Quarterly-Rpt-No11.pdf

2 County of Los Angeles Homeless Initiative (October 2018). Measure H FY 2019-2020 Funding Recommendations Webinar. Accessed on January 24, 2019 from: http://homeless.lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/FY19-20-Measure-H-Funding-Rec-Public-Packet- FINAL-3.5.19-1.pdf

Sources: Gubits et al. (2015), exhibits 6-4; Gubits et al. (2016), exhibits 3-5

FIGURE 2

Average Per-Family Monthly Cost of Housing and Services

SUB CBRR PBTH ES

$1,172 $880

$6,000

$5,000

$4,000

$3,000

$2,000

$1,000

$0

Sources: Family Options Study cost data (CBRR, PBTH, and ES); HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center, Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System, and Financial Data Schedule records (SUB)

$2,706

$4,819

FIGURE 1Housing Stability at 37 Months

Homeless or doubled up in past 6 months

Shelter stay in months 21-32

16

5

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

19

34

SUB UC